The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-15

ton was an unlawful conspiracy, as it mesnt.
social revolution. Tho defendants soueas 10
use tnis organization to inspire hatred among
tnc "orkingmen of the police and militia; thsy
mace violent and incendiary speeches; they had
puonsned In their newspapers instructions for
we making OF bomb bs and dynamite. The court
quotes as part of it's opinion copious extracts
rom speeches by Spies. Fielden and others OF
tne Defendants. and extracts from the Anarchist
newspapers. 1t also recites the evidence as to
the purchase OF pistols and otheg arms by sun
ary OF the defendants. all of which evidence
showed conspiracy as charged. IN furtherance
oI the conspiracy as described the court states:
we think the jury were warranted in believing,
from the evidence. that the bomb which explod-
ant Llngg..
The question which next suggests itself. say
the court. Is whether the bomb made was
thrown at the HaymArket by member Of said
conspiracy, or By some one acting under its dl-
rection and in pursuance of its designs. To
soiss this problem the court gives q very careful
and lengthy review of tho evidence relating to
by Linge and his assistants and to other perti-
nent matters. The plan of Engel submitted
at a meeting of the Lehr and Wehr
10 the form se.olnion ana aaapias ripine
instructions for the throwing bombs If there
should tie conflict between the police aud the
Anarchists, is described in detail and COM
mented upon. and all of the special situations
and events of the Haymarket conflict con-
sidered After this review the court says that
is IS apparent that just such attack was made
on the police in the Haymarket contem-
plated and arranged for before and at the meet
ines of the ''lnternationals' and kind
took part; and that the bomb was thrown
as had been arranged. 1t holds that the jury
were warranted in believing from this evidence
that Louis Lingg a party to the Haymarket
conspiracy. and also that the Jury were justified
in believing, from the evidence. that the
who threw the bomb was either member of
the conspiracy agent employed by it.
AS to Engel and Fischer. the court held that
they were charged with the crime of murder,
they had advised and induced men to enter into
plot to murder the police with bombs and
pistols in a certain contingency and although
they were not actually among those who were
present when the bomb was thrown, they aided,
abetted. advised and encouraged that murder
The relations of the other defendants are then
considered. The opinion lays stress upon the
fact that the calls for the Haymarket meeting
which eliminated in the massacre were printed
in the English and German languages both
upon the same sheet of paper, and that the
printers employed by the Arbeiter Zeitung, who
usually quit work as O'Clock, were kept busily
at work on this particular Monday night. while
five or six Of the employees of the Arbeiter
Zeitung were kept at work long after
the hour for closing. That this circular
gave impulse to the action of the armed section
of the Monday night meeting and inspired the
adoption of the plan agreed upon, was apparent
from the fact that its contents were fully dis
cussed and dwelt upon az that meeting. The
testimony of Joe Gruenhut at that time sani-
tary INSPECTOR. under the administration of
Mayor Harrison. that he was present In the
writing the revenge circular and reading the
proof sheets of it. was dwelt irrefuta-
BILE proof of the authorship of the circular.
Turning to the claim of error in empaneiing
the jury, the court held that it was correct and
in accordance with the plain meaning of the law.
which says that the jury shall be passed upon
and accepted in panels of four by the parties.
commencing with the plaintiff: nor from
full examination of the record could the court
seest that the remarks of the States attorney to
the jury were marked by any such improprieties
as to warrant reversal of the Judgment
Upon the question as to whether new trial
should be granted because the court below
fused to grant a separate trial to each of the
defendants. the court gives distinct negative.
This was a matter of discretion with the court
below, and the point had been decided again and
again.
Particular atteption was given to the case of
Fieiden. the only Englishman among the con-
demned men. and who claimed that he was
present at the meeting only by accident, having
had IN engagements to address a meeting of
strikers in aEother of the city upon the fatal
night The court held that it, as claimed, there
part part Of the policemen tessifyine for for the State
there was equally strong bias on the part of the
witnesses that gave evidence in his favor. The
turbulence of the crowd in the Haymarket. the
incendary references to capitalists in general.
and to Jay Gould in particular were dwelt upon
indicating the Interior objects that Spies,
Parsons and their associates had in view, and
there are copious extracts from the speeches de-
hvered upon the memorable occasion to prove that
those responsible for the gathering had but one
10ea ana tlaI was TO 1nSit0 fn6lr hearers TO v1O-
lence. Incendiary utterances in the two An
archist papers are quoted at length, and the fact
commented upon that these were the organs of
the Internatonals and that the members looked
to those papers for orders and directions. It is
held that the jury were at liberty to use these
publications. in connection with other
fes vba'her %sn the thew vsw s,a OF 1as ba
long to the conspiracy. The conclusion Of
the court is that they did. The court holds that
the evidence showing that Spies and Schwab.
thoro hath ~ fh he hor,, -,
killed Dcgan, into the hand of the person who
threw it. was proven beyond peradventure by
the uncontradicted testimony of the witness
Thompson and that they therefore aided the
chief participant In the massacre in his murder
design. Thompson's testimony, which is
dwelt upon in detail, in the light of accompany.
ing facts, is regarded as positive and unimpeach-
able in it's character. while the evidence of the
defense upon the point is OF negative charac-
ter
The testimony relating TO Fielden, Spies. Par.
sons and the rest of the convicted men is touched
upon under separate beads. and in each the
Court holds that the evidence justified the find
ing of the jury. On the question of Fielden's
participation in the conspiracy, the Court holds
that the accused should have been original
contrver Of the mischief, for he might have be-
come partaker in it by joining the others
while it was being executed.
As to Neebe, the only one OF the defendants
who escaped the galows, the court holds that
when a man as prominently connected as he was
with the Internationalists, their organs and
leaders, distributed circulars convening the
Haymarket meeting, the court could not say
that the jury were not justified in holding him
responsible with his confederates for the
murders of the victims. The court holds that
the International was an illegal organization;
that its members were conspirators; that the
Arbeiter Zeitung and the Alarm were the organs
of the conspiracy, and that Spies, Parsons,
Schwab and Engel were responsible for the mat
ter published IL concludes by saving that
many of the points made by counsel for the de-
fense were not of sufficient weight TO entitls
them to consideration, and declares that the
Judgment of the lower court is affirmed
Judge Mulkey has filed this his opinion in
the case:
As it is not my intentiozto file separate opinion
should have done had my health permitted. pre-
fer to avail myself of the occasion TO say from the
bench that while concur in the conclusion reached
and also in the general view presented in the opinion
filed, do not consider that the record is free from
error. for do not think it is. nevertheless. of
the opinion that of the complained of
of serious character to require reversal of
the Judgment. In view of the number of defendants
trial the length of time was in the vast